1. What is the difference between a. and a. Relevant and important facts of the case: Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. offers a payment option in which purchasers can make stipulated monthly rent payments until the total amount is fully paid off. The title of the items remains in Walker-Thomas's possession until the total of the accumulated monthly payments meets the total amount the item is valued at. If the appellant fails to pay all of the required monthly payments and defaults, Walker-Thomas would then be entitled to repossess those items, as stated in the written contract that Williams signed and agreed to multiple times. Between …show more content…
What is the difference between a'smart' and a'smart'? In this case, the ruling should be determined based on whether the language used in the contract was challenging and esoteric and whether it was written to be exact and precise or to be obscure and excessively complex. Ruling either way has profound implications and sets crucial precedents for future court rulings. If the court ruled in favor of Walker-Thomas, the poorer and uneducated demographics would be the most negatively affected. If lawyers who write these contracts can use obscure and ambiguous language that is difficult for uneducated people, who make up the lower and middle classes, these people will be disproportionately taken advantage of. Wealthier people who are educated enough to understand these contracts or are wealthy enough to have access to resources that would assist them in understanding these contracts have a clear advantage over those who are poorer and less educated. If the court ruled in favor of Williams, it would incentivize people who want to get out of contracts they have already signed and agreed to, claiming the contracts are too challenging to understand and comprehend, regardless of the language and diction used. It would mean written and signed contracts hold less weight in the courts, leading to a lack of trust between business partners to uphold the end of the agreement. People would want to breach contracts when something that occurs could negatively affect them, as it would now be easier to get out of them. Additionally, specifically in this case, Walker-Williams may take away the option to pay in monthly payments and require the total payment upfront as they could become afraid that people in the future will do the same thing as Williams did and default on their payments. This could make it more difficult for poorer people to buy furniture to furnish their homes as they now have to pay all the money upfront, which they might not